Jury finds three people not guilty of violating urgency ordinance; Humboldt County says revisions still in the works

A jury found three people not guilty Wednesday of charges related to the restrictions placed on protesters by Humboldt County's urgency ordinance, leaving the district attorney's office to investigate how the decision impacts other cases.

After more than one week of deliberations, the jury -- overseen by Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Marilyn Miles -- found Peter Camacho, Kimberly Starr and Amanda Tierney not guilty of having an unlawful presence at the county courthouse grounds March 30. They had been charged with violating the section of the urgency ordinance that states protesters can't be at the courthouse between 9:30 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Camacho said Wednesday he's looking forward to celebrating the jury's decision with a candlelight vigil -- the same nighttime activity that got him in trouble in the first place.

"I hope this sends a strong message to the board of supervisors that many of the provisions in the ordinance are already covered by existing law," Camacho said.

The urgency ordinance was enacted March 27 in a 4-1 vote, with 3rd District Supervisor Mark Lovelace dissenting, in response to complaints about the activities of the Occupy group in front of the courthouse. It places time restrictions on protest activities, prohibits people from erecting structures or securing items to county property, prohibits camping on the courthouse grounds, prohibits obstructing access or interfering with the passage of others, storing personal property, letting loose non-service animals, using or interfering with county water and electrical services, urinating or defecating on the courthouse grounds, operating a food facility and littering, damaging or defacing county property.

On June 19, the supervisors voted 3-2, with 1st District Supervisor Jimmy Smith and 2nd District Supervisor Clif Clendenen dissenting, to direct county staff to look into modifying the urgency ordinance -- including repealing the overnight restriction. County staff have yet to bring back an updated ordinance or alternatives for the board's consideration.

County spokesperson Sean Quincey said it doesn't appear the process of revising the ordinance will move any faster because of Wednesday's court decision. He said the county is reviewing a draft of the amended ordinance and gathering feedback from Eureka officials.

"We're still in that process now," Quincey said. "That's just going to take a little bit of time."

He said there's no time estimate for when the board might be discussing the item again.

Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos said the DA's Office doesn't believe the urgency ordinance violates the First Amendment -- as stated by the defendants -- but that Wednesday's verdict warrants inspection as to how attorneys try similar cases.

Gallegos said his office will still continue to enforce the law, and that the ordinance isn't something the office can back away from. However, he said, the case highlights the conflict between individuals' rights and society's desire to have a certain amount of order. He said the court is often on the edge of community debates.

"It is important we try these cases, to bring these issues before the community," Gallegos said. "The jury is supposed to be the conscience of the community."

Deputy Public Defender Casey Russo, who defended the accused, said he thinks it's going to be very difficult for the DA's Office to prosecute similar cases in the future. He said it's hard to convince 12 jurors that the act of peaceful assembly is a crime.

"This is an indication that there are major questions about the constitutionality of the ordinance," Russo said.

Russo had filed a demurrer with the court, challenging the constitutionality of the ordinance and the case's validity. The demurrer stated the ordinance "is unconstitutional on its face, as it is an over-broad restriction on the exercise of constitutionally protected expression." However, it was overruled by a judge, and the case proceeded to trial.

Fifth District Supervisor Ryan Sundberg said he was aware of the demurrer and its overruling. He said the jury's ultimate decision in the case is a bit puzzling.

"It seems like if you're not supposed to be somewhere, and you are, and you're arrested for it -- it's kind of an interesting verdict," Sundberg said.

He said he believes people should be able to hold their candlelight vigils, hence his latest vote in June to have county staff look at amending the overnight restriction in the urgency ordinance.

In talking with jurors, Russo said what swayed the jury in the case was a particular instruction from the judge about the trio's mental state during the incident.

"If they believed their actual belief was protected (by the First Amendment), and if that belief was found reasonable by the jury, then they didn't have the required mental state to have committed this crime," Russo said.

Surrounded by supporters and fellow Occupy protesters, the three celebrated their success Wednesday in a hall at the courthouse.

"I think this is a great victory for First Amendment rights," Tierney said.